Legal scholar Jonathan Turley has warned Democrats they are on a “slippery slope” with their campaign to boot President Donald Trump from 2024 ballots.
The constitutional law professor joined “The Brian Kilmeade Show” to explain why Jan. 6 was a protest and not a “rebellion or insurrection.”
Turley asserts that not only has President Trump not been charged with incitement or rebellion in the three years since Jan. 6, but that the American people do not view it that way, either.
The constitutional law professor said the Democrats’ efforts to disqualify Trump to allegedly “save democracy” are a threat to the republic.
“The biggest problem for me is that the 14th Amendment, Section Three, deals with rebellion and/or insurrection,” Turley explains.
“This was neither,” he declared.
“This was a riot and at some point, mature minds have got to kick in here and say, look, he has never even been charged with incitement, let alone rebellion and insurrection.
“But more importantly, putting aside the fact that he hasn’t been convicted, this wasn’t a rebellion or insurrection.
“I know that the other side has really tried hard to portray it that way, but the American people don’t even view it that way.
“Polls indicate that the public views this as a protest that became a riot.
“It doesn’t excuse what happened.”
“We’ve had violent protests in this country,” Turley added.
“There were violent protests when Trump was inaugurated.
“And at that time, there were Democratic members that voted not to certify Donald Trump.
“Were they also rebellious? What they’re suggesting here is really otherworldly.
“If this is going to be the new theory, it’ll be replicated, it’ll metastasize throughout the country.
“I’ve got a column out in the New York Post talking about the new effort to bar Congressman [Scott] Perry under the same theory that Democratic members of Congress have asked to bar dozens of Republican members of Congress under the same theories.
“That’s the slippery slope that we’re about to step on.”
“It’s a tit-for-tat politics,” Turley noted.
“And the terrible thing is that this is the most successful and stable democracy in the history of the world.
“And yet, after this long successful run, you have blind advocates today trying to introduce an instability in that system that could destroy it.
“This is the type of theory that can destroy a democracy.
“And, you know, there’s a poll showing that the majority of people do not believe in this disqualification.
“Some 40% do, but it shows how dangerous this is.
“We are a divided country and you have people who are trying to win this election in the courts.”
On Tuesday, a federal judge dismissed most of the civil counts against Trump and two others in connection with the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.
Sicknick died of natural causes shortly after the U.S. Capitol protests on Jan. 6.
However, Democrats and their allies in the corporate media have tried to suggest Sicknick was killed by protesters, which is false.
In a 12-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta dismissed three of the five civil counts in a lawsuit filed last January by Sandra Garza, Sicknick’s girlfriend.
Garza’s lawsuit against Trump and Jan. 6 rioters Julian Khater and George Tanios sought damages from all three men for claims of wrongful death, conspiracy to violate civil rights, and negligence per se based on D.C.’s anti-riot law.
In his ruling Tuesday, Mehta dismissed the wrongful death act count and both negligence per se allegations.